Ars reports on the debate over whether creation is viable as science.

PETERSBURG, KENTUCKY—A brightly lit auditorium was packed with young adults wearing bow-ties, young-Earth creationists, and a gaggle of media there to maybe see sparks fly. The sparks could have been generated by Ken Ham, president/CEO of Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum, and Bill Nye the Science Guy, but instead, they mostly talked past each other for two-and-a-half hours on a snowy Kentucky night. The topic was one near and dear to both debate participants: the nature of acceptable scientific discourse. More specifically, they attempted to answer the question “is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?”

Ham and Nye both led off with short, five-minute statements followed by 30-minute presentations punctuated by PowerPoint slides, video clips, and graphics intended to buttress their cases. Unsurprisingly, Ham’s starting point was Genesis, and he kept coming back to the assertion that God’s word as revealed in the first two chapters of Genesis is the definitive authority. All scientific inquiry should therefore begin with and proceed from there.

To make the case that science and creationism were compatible, he showed short video clips of scientists from around the world who believed in a literal six days of creation. "People are going to see what we really believe tonight," Ham promised. "I believe science has been hijacked by secularists" who seem to indoctrinate folks in the "religion of naturalism."

Nye countered with arguments from the fossil record, ice cores taken from Greenland, and tree rings to demonstrate that a literal reading of Genesis is unable to account for many scientific discoveries. Given that some of the core samples show over 680,000 annual progressions through the four seasons, Nye pointed that we'd have to experience well over a hundred winter-summer cycles every year to account for that number. "Wouldn't someone have noticed that?" he asked.

Ken Ham argues for two types of science: "observational" and "historical."

Eric Bangeman / Ars Technica

One of the points of contention throughout the debate was the term "science." Ham made the distinction between "historical science" and "observed science." The former relates to things that happened in the past, things that cannot be directly observed. In contrast, observed science is the present, that which can be tested, observed, and repeated. Nye rejected those distinctions. He kept returning to the point that there is only one kind of science, and it's all observational. "On CSI, there is no distinction between observational and experimental science."

How does one deal with the existence of the Grand Canyon and the layers of sediment and fossils? For Ham, we can't really know for sure, since we weren't there to observe what happened. "None of us saw the sandstone being laid down." During his presentation, Nye countered Ham by pointing out that, if the young earth creation arguments were correct, we'd see "churning and bubbling and writhing" in the Grand Canyon fossil record. "You never, ever, find a higher animal mixed in with a lower one," he says. "You never find a lower one trying to swim its way to the higher one."

After the 30-minute presentations, both participants were given five minutes for rebuttals and counter-rebuttals. During that time, both Ham and Nye attempted to poke holes in the other's arguments. For Ham, that meant being critical of various dating methods used by scientists. Other than the Bible, "there is no accurate dating method," Ham argued emphatically. "None." Nye again focused on Ham's distinction between "historical" and "observable" science, a distinction that does not exist for anyone other than "Ken Ham and his followers." He also repeatedly challenged Ham to offer some examples of predictive science based on young-Earth creation.

Some of the most interesting exchanges came during the Q&A session. Moderator Tom Foreman of CNN had a list of audience-submitted questions directed at either Nye or Ham, with the other given a chance to respond. When asked about what existed before the Big Bang, Nye began his answer with "I don't know."

"This is the great mystery—you've hit the nail on the head," he replied passionately. "What was before the Big Bang? This is what drives us, this is what we want to know. Let's keep looking, let's keep searching."

For Ham, the answer is simple. "There's a book out there that tells us where matter came from," he explained. "It's the only thing that makes logical sense."

Both Ham and Nye made a case for science education in the public schools, but, as one might expect, they each came at it from a different perspective. Ham wants creation science to be a part of the curriculum in part because it encourages critical thinking. For Nye, the US needs to embrace science in the curriculum in order to be competitive. "If we stop driving forward, looking for the next answer, we in the United States will be out-competed by other countries, other economies."

The debate ended as it began, with the two adversaries shaking hands and then walking off the dais. Were hearts touched and minds changed? Probably not. But two men with starkly different beliefs and viewpoints made their case stridently and respectfully before a rapt, well-behaved audience. Today, that counts for something.

Ken Ham's organization later posted video of the debate to YouTube.

Stay tuned for an in-depth feature on the debate and its historical antecedents. We're also going to head over to the Creation Museum on Wednesday morning to take in the sights.

Latest Ars Video >

The Greatest Leap, Episode 3: Triumph

In honor of the 50th anniversary of the beginning of the Apollo Program, Ars Technica brings you an in depth look at the Apollo missions through the eyes of the participants.

The Greatest Leap, Episode 3: Triumph

The Greatest Leap, Episode 3: Triumph

In honor of the 50th anniversary of the beginning of the Apollo Program, Ars Technica brings you an in depth look at the Apollo missions through the eyes of the participants.

Eric Bangeman
Eric has been using personal computers since 1980 and writing about them at Ars Technica since 2003, where he currently serves as Managing Editor. Twitter@ericbangeman

727 Reader Comments

Cute. But if you'd taken the time to read where you pointed...No living trees that can be dated using ring counting have been found with at least 6000 years of rings. The current top number is about 5800 years or so. For older trees, like Old Tjikko in Sweden, they need to use carbon dating because of the different biological processes that tree uses (it is understood that Old Tjikko's trunk dies every few hundred years or so and a new one spouts out of the still-living roots).

The argument isn't whether there are trees older than a 6,000 year earth but the question is if there was "Noah's Flood" how can any 3,000+ year old trees have survived?

You don't seem to aware of the artificial distinction these people make between small-scale adaptation and major body plan changes. No amount of small-scale laboratory adaptation within a species will convince them that larger body plan changes are possible through similar mechanisms.

No, I get that quite well - I spent a ridiculous amount of time arguing all this stuff passionately back when talkorigins.cc was talk.origins on UseNet, as relayed by FIDOnet on larger BBSes in the early 90s.

What I'm telling you is that for me, that's an automatic disqualifier for saying you have "a scientific mindset", and I'm going to have severe difficulty trusting you with scientific research if you're that willfully blind. And anybody else should, as well, and especially in biology itself. We're not talking about simple mechanics and maintenance, here, we're talking about research, and understanding - and practicing - the scientific method isn't just optional, it's bloody well required.

I hope you'll understand why I was confused on that point, as you directly referenced Drosophila evolution in the lab as something that would have mattered to this person.

I get your point of view, but someone can do good work in one corner of science while being misguided and believe something wrong about another corner. But unlike something like. say, particle physics or cosmology, the organizing theory of biology almost doesn't matter in most of the day-to-day work for most research questions.

I disagree. Evolution (biological) depends on heavily on other since fields, namely, physics, chemistry & geology. If the person doubts physics, then how can they rely on any testing?

Uhh... what? You may want to re-read what I wrote, because I don't think it says what you think it says. Namely, that day-to-day work in biology isn't heavily dependent on accepting evolution, while in particle physics you couldn't do anything if you didn't accept the standard model, cosmology without accepting general relativity, chemistry without accepting chemical bond theory, etc.

But evolution depends heavily on particle physics (decay rates), evolution depends heavily on cosmology (speed of light, could really be saying physics here as well), and depends heavily on chemistry (how is it that DNA works).

Lastly with biology, nothing in biology makes sense without the light of evolution. It would just be data points without a relationship from one point to one another. Evolution is what makes all of biology make sense.

Why does medicinal research rely so heavily on mice or rats and not insects/plants/etc? Because we are both mammal, mice/rats reproduce quickly with short life spans, and very compact so lots can be researched. Our common ancestor is very old but the basic parts both species are there. Warm blooded, similar digestive systems, etc.

Cute. But if you'd taken the time to read where you pointed...No living trees that can be dated using ring counting have been found with at least 6000 years of rings. The current top number is about 5800 years or so. For older trees, like Old Tjikko in Sweden, they need to use carbon dating because of the different biological processes that tree uses (it is understood that Old Tjikko's trunk dies every few hundred years or so and a new one spouts out of the still-living roots).

The argument isn't whether there are trees older than a 6,000 year earth but the question is if there was "Noah's Flood" how can any 3,000+ year old trees have survived?

Species classified as being flood-tolerant, surviving as many as two growing seasons with their root systems under water include silver maple, sweetgum, red maple, green ash, honeylocust, eastern cottonwood, and baldcypress.

Cute. But if you'd taken the time to read where you pointed...No living trees that can be dated using ring counting have been found with at least 6000 years of rings. The current top number is about 5800 years or so. For older trees, like Old Tjikko in Sweden, they need to use carbon dating because of the different biological processes that tree uses (it is understood that Old Tjikko's trunk dies every few hundred years or so and a new one spouts out of the still-living roots).

The argument isn't whether there are trees older than a 6,000 year earth but the question is if there was "Noah's Flood" how can any 3,000+ year old trees have survived?

Species classified as being flood-tolerant, surviving as many as two growing seasons with their root systems under water include silver maple, sweetgum, red maple, green ash, honeylocust, eastern cottonwood, and baldcypress.

(emphasis mine)

I'm pretty sure we're talking about more than that depth of water.

Not to mention for a longer period of time. I doubt trees would even get enough sunlight to survive underneath all the supposed water, let alone survive drowning/root damage.

You don't seem to aware of the artificial distinction these people make between small-scale adaptation and major body plan changes. No amount of small-scale laboratory adaptation within a species will convince them that larger body plan changes are possible through similar mechanisms.

No, I get that quite well - I spent a ridiculous amount of time arguing all this stuff passionately back when talkorigins.cc was talk.origins on UseNet, as relayed by FIDOnet on larger BBSes in the early 90s.

What I'm telling you is that for me, that's an automatic disqualifier for saying you have "a scientific mindset", and I'm going to have severe difficulty trusting you with scientific research if you're that willfully blind. And anybody else should, as well, and especially in biology itself. We're not talking about simple mechanics and maintenance, here, we're talking about research, and understanding - and practicing - the scientific method isn't just optional, it's bloody well required.

I hope you'll understand why I was confused on that point, as you directly referenced Drosophila evolution in the lab as something that would have mattered to this person.

I get your point of view, but someone can do good work in one corner of science while being misguided and believe something wrong about another corner. But unlike something like. say, particle physics or cosmology, the organizing theory of biology almost doesn't matter in most of the day-to-day work for most research questions.

I disagree. Evolution (biological) depends on heavily on other since fields, namely, physics, chemistry & geology. If the person doubts physics, then how can they rely on any testing?

Uhh... what? You may want to re-read what I wrote, because I don't think it says what you think it says. Namely, that day-to-day work in biology isn't heavily dependent on accepting evolution, while in particle physics you couldn't do anything if you didn't accept the standard model, cosmology without accepting general relativity, chemistry without accepting chemical bond theory, etc.

But evolution depends heavily on particle physics (decay rates), evolution depends heavily on cosmology (speed of light, could really be saying physics here as well), and depends heavily on chemistry (how is it that DNA works).

Again, I have no idea what your point is. Of course it depends on those things. That has nothing to do with my point.

Quote:

Lastly with biology, nothing in biology makes sense without the light of evolution. It would just be data points without a relationship from one point to one another. Evolution is what makes all of biology make sense.

I agree. But it isn't always necessary to know why biology is the way it is in order to work with and understand biology as it exists today.

Quote:

Why does medicinal research rely so heavily on mice or rats and not insects/plants/etc? Because we are both mammal, mice/rats reproduce quickly with short life spans, and very compact so lots can be researched. Our common ancestor is very old but the basic parts both species are there. Warm blooded, similar digestive systems, etc.

The research relies on mice because of similarities. For the purpose of most of these experiments, it doesn't really matter why those similarities exist. Of course evolution explains why--it just doesn't usually matter why practically speaking.

He couldn't even point out one among the thousands of new traits that did not exist yesterday and evolved today, like Roundup-resistant weeds,

Is it that the plants had absolutely no ability to resist glyphosate and now they do? Or that they had negligible ability that has increased. Important distinction to be absolutely certain of considering the topic at hand.

I believe in both creationism and science. I don't see why they have to be at odds with each other. I think that science and all the amazing complex things associated with it actually point to intelligent design.

Everything from anatomy to embryology to ecology makes far more sense as the product of iterative evolution involving natural selection and common ancestry, rather than the intervention or direct planning of some kind of intelligent being. Almost nothing in nature works the way that people design things.

I'll just say that it takes the same amount of Faith to believe this universe just appeared randomly, or we evolved from monkeys as it does that I believe God created it.

No it doesn't. Scientific explanations are built from evidence and tested against alternatives. They are constantly being checked for veracity, accuracy, and reliability. They need to not only explain what we already observed, but to predict new observations that we can make. We rely on the conclusions that follow because we can show that they work, not because we just have "faith" that they'll work.

Yes, you are. You are trying to assert that they don't have the ability or the right to participate in the practical function of modern research.

This is like defending a lawyer who doesn't know how to practice law and keeps cocking up his own cases in court.

Quote:

The political left is trying undermine the church any any other competing institutions of power.

First of all, there is no "The Church." Secondly, has it occurred to you that this claim of yours might be backwards?

Quote:

Traditionally, church was the main provider of altruism, health care, education, and research.

In Europe it stepped into this role because those functions were vacated by the collapsing Roman Empire and the system supported by the Roman government. It's an accident of history that left the Roman Catholic Church in its state of quasi/official temporal sovereignty. It's not because that's the way things are "supposed" to be.

Quote:

Today, the political left wants the government to seize power over all of those functions and leave the useless remains as "religion" that can simply wither away.

Are you suggesting that without all those completely unnecessary social service aspects of organized religion (which are not central to the practice of Christianity), religion itself has no staying power? Why would "The Church" need to be a provider of healthcare to prop itself up?

Quote:

Personally, I think creationism is ridiculous and I am 100% secular/agnostic. But I am passionate about the right to directly choose the associations, be they religious or not, that provide services of altruism, health care, education, and research.

Well you can do that. But the performance of most religious institutions providing "research" (here presented as an alternative to what you call "Universities") is pretty abysmal. Bob Jones University doesn't build particle accelerators or supercomputer networks, and hasn't contributed meaningfully to the research scene. So the institutions that don't work are kind of being weeded out by their own flaws. There are a lot of Jesuit institutions that do valuable research, but in that role they basically serve as merely a church-sponsored version of entirely secular science, being performed out of a sense of religious duty rather than evangelism or ideological pursuits. They do actual science, not the fake stuff churned out by Answers in Genesis for homeschooling parents. And guess what? "The Left" isn't trying to tear down those kinds of institutions that do real science.

Quote:

If I find a particular church or religion or secular community group offensive, I have much more ability to walk away and not participate, than when remote centralized federal government coerces involuntary participation.

What kind of coercion do you think is actually going on here? I don't want some vague rigamarole about The Left taking over, I want specifics. What does The Left say you can and cannot do in this case?

Precisely! If you gut the practical purpose out of religion and just leave the silly dances and ceremonies, it has no staying power.

What about all that philosophical stuff? You know, providing people with a spiritual framework upon which to hang their beliefs?

Quote:

In the US, the big practical function that has _not_ been crowded out by government is providing a sense of community. I'm sure politicians would seize power in that area too if they knew how.

Seems like a pretty silly thing to be sure of, and the motivation for doing so is never made clear in the first place.

Quote:

No, I can't meaningfully opt out of contributing to government charity services or government health care laws or government run education.

Oh, well no. That's the cost of living in a society. You have to give up some aspects of your total individual freedom in order to participate and receive the benefits of said society. You are free to pick up and move just about anywhere you want where you think the government's agenda and policies align with your own, though. Isn't that free market enough? You can also campaign to change the way the government operates. But nobody is obliged to agree with you if you can't mount a sufficiently convincing argument to either sway most people to your side, or convince the courts that X or Y government policy is incompatible with the highest law of the land. I don't get to decide that my taxes should all go into NASA instead of the military, either.

Quote:

Let the people that voluntary provide funding or labor make that judgement.

They already do. That's why private research institutions exist.

Quote:

The "Left" isn't explicitly sending bulldozers over. But they are pushing for larger seizure of involuntary money and power to fund competing research which inherently competes with and crowds out other efforts.

This tends to happen in a democracy. And it's not like these things are exclusive to "the left." You might not have noticed, but several states and federal laws were set up to prevent two consenting adults from marrying each other because of things like the color of their skin; that wasn't a "liberal" policy, nor is the modern incarnation involving prohibitions against same-sex marriage. And what about Abstinence-Only sex ed?

What kind of coercion do you think is actually going on here? I don't want some vague rigamarole about The Left taking over, I want specifics. What does The Left say you can and cannot do in this case?

Taxation and deficit spending are fundemntally coercive.

That's not specific. In fact, it's not even specific to The Left.

Quote:

For research, government sets rules on what is and isn't funded and how it is funded.

Only for things that are getting government money or reasonably involve public health in some way. Private funding still exists, and nobody is trying to stamp that out.

Quote:

Regarding health care, they are dictating quite specific terms and rules to all health insurance companies and medical care companies.

Yes, this is called "regulation." It's an essential function of government.

Quote:

That is completly coercive. And it doesn't even have popular support which is supposed to be democracy's lame excuse for free choice.

Much of the measures that are actually being implemented DO have popular support, as long as they're presented individually instead of under some over-arching label like "Obamacare." Things like doing away with the exclusion of pre-existing conditions and extending the age of eligible coverage for adult children under their parents' plans.

Quote:

For education, the federal government is using financial pressure to force local schools around the nation to adopt the federal government's chosen common core curriculum. States can opt out of using common core, but the federal government still takes money from their citizens and uses that to pressure them.

You mean the federal government gets to decide how all the individual states can and can't use federal money? Gasp! What are living in, some kind of federalist system!?!? BTW, it's not just The Left doing this. See AO sex ed above.

Moses is credited with the writing of Genesis, and yes, he wasn't there. However, I was claiming that Genesis 1-4 was written by Adam, whom was around God, who could have told him at the very least.Additionally, Genesis 5 could have been written by Noah or one of the intervening generations between Adam and Noah... Adam was alive until Noah's father's (Lamech's) time.

I believe the technical term for the form of argument that you are employing is "complete bullshit".

On what possible evidence are you claiming that Adam wrote the first 4 books of Genesis? I'll help you with the answer - no evidence what so ever. The people who believe most strongly that Genesis came from the hand of God and was given to Moses, don't take it literally and would of course laugh in your face if you told them it was written by Adam.

This is quite possibly the single most ridiculous theory proposed in this entire debate.

A typical US American issue. An issue that purports the stereotype of dumb/uneducated americans. Over here in Europe no-one but a few nut jobs believes this Intelligent Design/Creation nonsense. That you even have politicians that support ID agendas is mindboggling. A politicians that voices such ideas here would be laughed out of his office.

What went wrong in the US that you got a whole anti-science movement in the US: anti-vaccine, Intelligent Design, global warming deniers ...

Well, just off the top of my head I can mention that the anti-vaccine story started in England.

Every once in a while I see stories about political shenanigans outside the US and I'm somewhat irrationally relieved that we're not the only insane people on the planet.

Ham is Australian. That's practically British.EDIT: Whoops, replying to FFabian, not you

Yep.. and where is his museum? Ops.. it's in the USA! Why? Cause it's the only place such a "museum" could be opened without total ridicule.

I don't live in the US, but I find it amazing that some people have even the need for such a debate, or that legitimate scientist are willing to lower themselves to have such a discussion. next time why not a serious debate with Flat Earth theorists?http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/or scientologists while we're at it?(or Raël?)

I just don't get how a "moderate" christian can get from "the bible is a metaphor and I still believe in science and evolution" to "I'm also a christian." If you don't believe the bible is True, what basis is there to believe the god of the bible is real?

I think you'd use your brain and don't take every word you read in scriptures from any religion litteraly?I believe that what's theology is about, not taking everything litteraly, but understand these books were written by men, with a certain mindset from a certain time, and understand there is symbolical and metaphorical meaning to all of this, and understand it's more about the values they're supposed to teach than the fact that some fantasy story is true. In this context it's up to you to determine if god is supposed to be real or also a concept, but maybe on a certain level there's no difference.

Yes, it is worth it to talk to YEC believers. Some of them (like myself) were indoctrinated into the belief when they were young, told "this is the way it is" and told that science was full of lies and was trying to undermine my religion. I was never told the information that I needed to not be a YEC.

Debates like this help those people who have niggling doubts (I never, for one second, believed that dinosaurs and humans lived together.) They can open the curious up to learning more about science. They can help lead people into knowing what's what.

Don't just dismiss them as "idiots" or "stupid" or "inbred" (as I've sadly seen stated elsewhere.) A lot of them are just ignorant of the truth. A lot of them are hungry for knowledge, but are so deeply embedded in their faith they need help getting out of it.

The smug superiority of those who think they're so special or so much smarter than YEC doesn't help, either, just so you know. You're not more special or more intelligent. You're just lucky to not have been born into a family where your thirst for knowledge is quashed by faith.

To me, all science, mathematics, our atmosphere, trees, mountains, birds, air, gravity, the amazing human body, and on and on point to intelligent design, and I love learning about new things and how amazing this world truly is.

That's all fine, though there are a great many natural things on earth and in the human body that are really poorly designed...

Let's hear em!

For starters, who in the world builds an entertainment center inside their waste disposal unit?

Or better yet, who builds a nerve that goes in the completely wrong direction for seemingly no reason (recurrent laryngeal nerve)?

Why are ectopic pregnancies a thing, or C sections?

What about hernias, choking, asphyxiation in higher altitudes (since breathing rate is dictated by the presence of CO2 and not O2, or even the presence of the appendix.

Why do we have a blind spot in our vision when invertebrates do not?

The list goes on and on, for humans to have been designed in "God's image", I'd imagine any such God would have very apparent design flaws.

Pregnancies were made more difficult as of Genesis 3, and death started then too. They're more punishment for their sin than design flaws. So for creationists, there's no inconsistency.

I just don't get how a "moderate" christian can get from "the bible is a metaphor and I still believe in science and evolution" to "I'm also a christian." If you don't believe the bible is True, what basis is there to believe the god of the bible is real?

I think you'd use your brain and don't take every word you read in scriptures from any religion litteraly?I believe that what's theology is about, not taking everything litteraly, but understand these books were written by men, with a certain mindset from a certain time, and understand there is symbolical and metaphorical meaning to all of this, and understand it's more about the values they're supposed to teach than the fact that some fantasy story is true. In this context it's up to you to determine if god is supposed to be real or also a concept, but maybe on a certain level there's no difference.

What distinguishes you from someone who just likes a particular book called "the Bible" then? I like Mark Twain, and I think there's a lot of moral insight that can be gained from reading his novels, but I'm not a Mark Twainist. I even enjoy reading the Bible, appreciating it as a literary work and an interesting historical creation. I'm not a Christian. What BTKO is asking is how someone goes from appreciating a book to being a believer. If all it means to be a Christian is that you think there are some nuggets of wisdom in the Bible, then Christianity can hardly be described as a religion.

I just don't get how a "moderate" christian can get from "the bible is a metaphor and I still believe in science and evolution" to "I'm also a christian." If you don't believe the bible is True, what basis is there to believe the god of the bible is real?

I think you'd use your brain and don't take every word you read in scriptures from any religion litteraly?I believe that what's theology is about, not taking everything litteraly, but understand these books were written by men, with a certain mindset from a certain time, and understand there is symbolical and metaphorical meaning to all of this, and understand it's more about the values they're supposed to teach than the fact that some fantasy story is true. In this context it's up to you to determine if god is supposed to be real or also a concept, but maybe on a certain level there's no difference.

What distinguishes you from someone who just likes a particular book called "the Bible" then?

Believing that the book contains truths about the spiritually important aspects of the world and humankind as form of received knowledge, probably. I really don't think you can say that Twain set out to do anything comparable (unless you count The Mysterious Stranger, but even that is more of a commentary on people than a claimed source of revelatory knowledge from some kind of higher power).

Are you suggesting that without all those completely unnecessary social service aspects of organized religion (which are not central to the practice of Christianity), religion itself has no staying power? Why would "The Church" need to be a provider of healthcare to prop itself up?

Precisely! If you gut the practical purpose out of religion and just leave the silly dances and ceremonies, it has no staying power. In the US, the big practical function that has _not_ been crowded out by government is providing a sense of community. I'm sure politicians would seize power in that area too if they knew how.

And guess what? "The Left" isn't trying to tear down those kinds of institutions that do real science.

The "Left" isn't explicitly sending bulldozers over. But they are pushing for larger seizure of involuntary money and power to fund competing research which inherently competes with and crowds out other efforts.

What kind of coercion do you think is actually going on here? I don't want some vague rigamarole about The Left taking over, I want specifics. What does The Left say you can and cannot do in this case?

Taxation and deficit spending are fundemntally coercive.

For research, government sets rules on what is and isn't funded and how it is funded.

Regarding health care, they are dictating quite specific terms and rules to all health insurance companies and medical care companies. That is completly coercive. And it doesn't even have popular support which is supposed to be democracy's lame excuse for free choice.

For education, the federal government is using financial pressure to force local schools around the nation to adopt the federal government's chosen common core curriculum. States can opt out of using common core, but the federal government still takes money from their citizens and uses that to pressure them.

You can also campaign to change the way the government operates. But nobody is obliged to agree with you if you can't mount a sufficiently convincing argument to either sway most people to your side, or convince the courts that X or Y government policy is incompatible with the highest law of the land.

If I want to fund a kickstarter campaign, join an association, buy a consumer product, contribute to charity, take an online class, or go to the gym, I have direct choice. I don't need my viewpoint to win this massive remote election that I realistically have nearly zero influence into and dominate all other viewpoints before my views become actionable.

Ideally, society would involve more direct choice and less tyrrany of the majority style democracy. This was a basic premise of the founding fathers of the United States when they conceived of this nation. Clearly, since then, power hungry politicians have found ways to circumvent the legal checks and balance and seize more majority powers.

I don't get to decide that my taxes should all go into NASA instead of the military, either.

Ideally, you should. I honestly haven't fully thought through the military issue yet. The model of completely individual choice doesn't seem to work when violence and property rights come into play. What if you believe theft should be legal? Or killing?

And it's not like these things are exclusive to "the left." You might not have noticed, but several states and federal laws were set up to prevent two consenting adults from marrying each other because of things like the color of their skin;

Sure, most generalizations are not absolute and there are exceptions. The right generally has pushed for smaller federal government and more local government and local rights and choice and the left has pushed in the opposite direction. There are exceptions like the ones that you mention, but that is the general trend that is widely agreed upon.

What kind of coercion do you think is actually going on here? I don't want some vague rigamarole about The Left taking over, I want specifics. What does The Left say you can and cannot do in this case?

Taxation and deficit spending are fundemntally coercive.

That's not specific. In fact, it's not even specific to The Left.

Quote:

For research, government sets rules on what is and isn't funded and how it is funded.

Only for things that are getting government money or reasonably involve public health in some way. Private funding still exists, and nobody is trying to stamp that out.

For education, the federal government is using financial pressure to force local schools around the nation to adopt the federal government's chosen common core curriculum.

You mean the federal government gets to decide how all the individual states can and can't use federal money? Gasp! What are living in, some kind of federalist system!?!?

Laws were written explicitly to stop the federal government from dictating a school curriculum to the states, so the federal government seizes money from the people of the states, regardless of how they voted in state elections, and uses that to pressure the states into adopting a specific curriculum. Legally, the federal government found ways to circumvent the checks and balances on their power, and force others to submit to their will.

Sure, as soon as the money is seized from the people living in a state, it becomes "federal money", and the federal government has largely unchecked power into taking more.

You don't need a trained scientist to poke away at the notion that creationism is a "viable model of origins" when there are two mutually-contradictory origin stories in Bible itself. And did Ham really imply that the Bible can be used as an accurate dating method? Wasn't that just something invented a couple hundred years ago by a guy guesstimating the ages of the various biblical patriarchs?

I think the reason that the Bible is supposed to be the only accurate dating method is because it is the inspired (albeit not direct; not that I'm aware of anyway) word of God.

I don't get to decide that my taxes should all go into NASA instead of the military, either.

Ideally, you should. I honestly haven't fully thought through the military issue yet. The model of completely individual choice doesn't seem to work when violence and property rights come into play. What if you believe theft should be legal? Or killing?

I just wanted to key in on this point. You're worried about what people who disagree with you would do, and want to make sure their choices are restricted just enough to your liking.

This idea also assumes that every individual person has enough information, expertise, and intelligence to determine where best to allocate their funds. And honestly, you're worried about your vote not having an impact, but you think being able to directly allocate just 0.0001% of the country's tax dollars *would* have a meaningful impact?

But government funded research inherently competes with and crowds out privately funded research.

Really? So, in your view, there is no possible way that there's a high demand for research, one that's only partially met by government, and all the private research money that's offered can still find a place?

Because, you know, based on actual evidence - like the intense competition for government grands, and the large amounts of private funding out there - i'd say that government isn't crowding anything out here.

You can also campaign to change the way the government operates. But nobody is obliged to agree with you if you can't mount a sufficiently convincing argument to either sway most people to your side, or convince the courts that X or Y government policy is incompatible with the highest law of the land.

If I want to fund a kickstarter campaign, join an association, buy a consumer product, contribute to charity, take an online class, or go to the gym, I have direct choice.

And real life is not so accommodating, especially when we're dealing with a few hundred million other people who aren't you. You just cannot have everything the way you want it. Get used to it.

Quote:

Ideally, society would involve more direct choice and less tyrrany of the majority style democracy.

There are already protections against tyranny of the majority, such as civil rights protections. What you want is something that just isn't ideal, let alone feasible. How much say should you have over things that impact other people? Should you be able to pollute the air in your property, even if that means it'll blow over to your neighbors'? Should you have the "freedom" to go without medical insurance, even if that means everyone else will pick up the tab when you can't afford care? There's a range of issues for which a simplistic view of individual rights and choices just breaks down; it no longer serves the individual whose "choice" it ostensibly is, and it doesn't serve the people around them either. There's a reason no libertarian utopia has ever successfully been established.

Quote:

This was a basic premise of the founding fathers of the United States when they conceived of this nation. Clearly, since then, power hungry politicians have found ways to circumvent the legal checks and balance and seize more majority powers.

1) The basic premise of the founding fathers is much more complex and nuanced than you make it seem, 2) the founders were NOT all of one mind on the extent and manifestations of these freedoms, and 3) the founding fathers were not absolutely right in everything. Fortunately they were pragmatic, and designed a flexible system of government that can change and adapt to jettison what doesn't work and institute what does, allowing compromises to be reached by those with differing opinions, and putting a system in place which actually does incorporate a lot of individual voting power (even if the presidential popular votes are kind of a joke because of the electoral college system). Not everything happening since the founding of the US is due to "power hungry politicians" the way you imagine.

I don't get to decide that my taxes should all go into NASA instead of the military, either.

Ideally, you should.

I don't think that's a good idea, actually. There are plenty of unglamorous or even unpopular facets of government that would simply never get funded, no matter how necessary they are. It's not ideal if that happens without any checks in place.

But government funded research inherently competes with and crowds out privately funded research.

No it doesn't. In fact, without government funded research plenty of private research simply wouldn't happen. Blue Sky or Basic research is completely necessary for future innovations to take advantage of the new knowledge. In case you hadn't noticed, not many private institutes are doing that unless it's for a popular cause (e.g. cancer research versus CERN). The only time when the big, wealthy, private corporations have done that kind of research was A) at the behest of government (directly or indirectly, e.g. for some kind of project related to a contract) or B) when they had a monopoly over something and thus earned the responsibility to conduct research with their earnings and expertise (Bell Labs, for exmaple). Also, I find it ironic that comments have been disabled on a video posted by the LibertyInOurTime folks. Apparently they don't think the marketplace of ideas is worthwhile?

Quote:

Sure, most generalizations are not absolute and there are exceptions. The right generally has pushed for smaller federal government and more local government and local rights and choice and the left has pushed in the opposite direction.

Even this isn't true. Bush and Reagan administrations? Nixon? When has a Republican president actually shrunk the government? It's a campaign fiction.

Quote:

Basic regulation like stopping people from killing their competitors and enforcement of contracts is quite difference from dictating quite specific terms by which a business should operate.

Not really. The things involved in those "basic regulation" areas you mention all involve dictating specific terms by which a business should operate. Again, you'll have to be more specific.

Quote:

Laws were written explicitly to stop the federal government from dictating a school curriculum to the states, so the federal government seizes money from the people of the states, regardless of how they voted in state elections, and uses that to pressure the states into adopting a specific curriculum. Legally, the federal government found ways to circumvent the checks and balances on their power, and force others to submit to their will.

How do you square this complaint with the idea that states should be more powerful and responsible regarding their own citizens? Shouldn't rejecting federal money with strings attached be consistent with that idea? Shouldn't taking federal money with no strings attached be inconsistent with it? When you say it should be up to the states, this is exactly what it means. I don't see the problem with the federal government offering extra funds for specific programs executed according to the specific aims of said federal government.

Quote:

Sure, as soon as the money is seized from the people living in a state, it becomes "federal money", and the federal government has largely unchecked power into taking more.

This is pretty much a necessary function of a successful federal system. It also happens at the state level with individual counties; do you object to that?

Quote:

Any time you discuss aggregate groups, you are simplifying and generalizing.

This is exactly why you don't have absolute individual freedom, too. Any time you are governing aggregate groups, you will necessarily implement policies that many of them don't like.

I just don't get how a "moderate" christian can get from "the bible is a metaphor and I still believe in science and evolution" to "I'm also a christian." If you don't believe the bible is True, what basis is there to believe the god of the bible is real?

I think you'd use your brain and don't take every word you read in scriptures from any religion litteraly?I believe that what's theology is about, not taking everything litteraly, but understand these books were written by men, with a certain mindset from a certain time, and understand there is symbolical and metaphorical meaning to all of this, and understand it's more about the values they're supposed to teach than the fact that some fantasy story is true. In this context it's up to you to determine if god is supposed to be real or also a concept, but maybe on a certain level there's no difference.

What distinguishes you from someone who just likes a particular book called "the Bible" then? I like Mark Twain, and I think there's a lot of moral insight that can be gained from reading his novels, but I'm not a Mark Twainist. I even enjoy reading the Bible, appreciating it as a literary work and an interesting historical creation. I'm not a Christian. What BTKO is asking is how someone goes from appreciating a book to being a believer. If all it means to be a Christian is that you think there are some nuggets of wisdom in the Bible, then Christianity can hardly be described as a religion.

I'm not a specialist (nor a christian), but it's not only the book, it's an organized religion, with core values, a ritual tradition, and human beings that keep it alive, (and make mistakes), so it's kept alive and evolving by these values and ritual. faith I think is something very personal, and if you chose to follow a particular cult, these values and ritual are only supposed to be a mean to access this faith, not an end. While it's proabably better to share some of those values, it doesn't mean you have to abandon all critical thinking and believe everything said in the name of said religion by men to be the unquestionned truth.(hope I make some sense).again this is probably biased, since I'm agnostic at best.the problem you have here that seem very specific to the US is hardcore evangelism,gor exemple the catholic church has never recused the evolution theory, and has pretty quickly officially accepted it. Frankly from my european perspective this is a bit frightening to read that creationism theory is considered on the same foot as evolution theory, is teached in some school, and that 45% of americans believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so."(from the wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism )(also cheer up it's 75% in saudi arabia)

Sure, most generalizations are not absolute and there are exceptions. The right generally has pushed for smaller federal government and more local government and local rights and choice and the left has pushed in the opposite direction.

Even this isn't true. Bush and Reagan administrations? Nixon? When has a Republican president actually shrunk the government? It's a campaign fiction.

I'd also argue that 'local rights and choice' is largely disingenuous, and when put into practice means 'removal of freedoms and/or protections normally derived from the federal level'.

e.g. It's not generally 'the Left' looking to ban municipalities from running their own fiber, block public sector unions, or to bypass Roe v. Wade.

I don't live in the US, but I find it amazing that some people have even the need for such a debate, or that legitimate scientist are willing to lower themselves to have such a discussion. next time why not a serious debate with Flat Earth theorists?http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/or scientologists while we're at it?(or Raël?)

It's funny you say that.I once shared an office with a grad student in biochemisty who was a Raëlian.

While this may have taken place at an American university, the biochemist in question was from France.He never talked about it around me, but I heard from another student who dated him a few years later.

This idea also assumes that every individual person has enough information, expertise, and intelligence to determine where best to allocate their funds.

Of course they don't. No one assumes that.

People don't have the info/expertise/intelligence to understand basic science and evolution, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have the basic freedom of choosing what to think. I believe in science and evolution strongly enough that it can and should convince people through logic and reason rather than political force. Similarly with research. Research should convince people to fund it based on its merit, like Kickstarter.com projects, rather than this mindset of "it is too important to give people a choice. the ends justify the means" and funding projects based on political clout rather than merit.

And honestly, you're worried about your vote not having an impact, but you think being able to directly allocate just 0.0001% of the country's tax dollars *would* have a meaningful impact?

Absolutely! With a winner take all democracy, even the viewpoint of the 49% can be completely suppressed, regardless of its merit. If even 1% of the population loves a certain food or TV show or exercise style, they have direct choice and direct engagement and direct results without having to win a massive remote election of disengaged voters before hand. Ideally, a 1% crowd could have similar direct choice and engagement with altruism, health care, education, and research.

People don't have the info/expertise/intelligence to understand basic science and evolution...

Yes they do. That's the really tragic part. Science is a simple enough process, and evolution (in broad strokes) is not only easy to explain and understand, it actually becomes obvious. But because of an artificial controversy advanced by people with political objections and willful ignorance, children are actually being robbed of the chance to learn about these things. Teachers in public schools are afraid to cover evolution, and textbook makers are under pressure to downplay or ignore it. They want a completely distorted and inaccurate version of science taught to all students, not just their own.

Quote:

... but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have the basic freedom of choosing what to think.

Nobody is arguing that people shouldn't have this freedom. However, freedom to choose what to think doesn't absolve people from being held to a curriculum of essential information. I can't be excused from math class just because I don't like the implications of steady growth.

Quote:

I believe in science and evolution strongly enough that it can and should convince people through logic and reason rather than political force.

You don't have this luxury because political force is being used to attack the opportunity for education about it. If children aren't able to hear it, they won't be convinced.

Quote:

Similarly with research. Research should convince people to fund it based on its merit, like Kickstarter.com projects, rather than this mindset of "it is too important to give people a choice. the ends justify the means" and funding projects based on political clout rather than merit.

This is the dumbest policy ever. I really don't have to go into all the ways this fails to work in the real world.

I don't live in the US, but I find it amazing that some people have even the need for such a debate, or that legitimate scientist are willing to lower themselves to have such a discussion. next time why not a serious debate with Flat Earth theorists?http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/or scientologists while we're at it?(or Raël?)

It's funny you say that.I once shared an office with a grad student in biochemisty who was a Raëlian.

While this may have taken place at an American university, the biochemist in question was from France.He never talked about it around me, but I heard from another student who dated him a few years later.

Yeah Claude Vorhillon (Rael) is our little national pride, and an endless source of fun (he was a singer alsohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLMgjgOeNWs)I suspect a lot of his followers are only in it to get laid, including him.It's a good old fashion 70's cult from the volcanic region in central France with an ET encounter (and Jesus and Mahomet being the same specie from a distant planet), sexual freedom, and money collecting to, you know, build an embassy to welcome the alien in case they decide to show up again.everything about it hilarious (just watch the presentation).http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_FmRZEYa1Q

Really? So, in your view, there is no possible way that there's a high demand for research, one that's only partially met by government, and all the private research money that's offered can still find a place?

Whatever private research money is offered will always find a place! That's obvious. The assertion is that increased government funding causes less private funding.

Because, you know, based on actual evidence - like the intense competition for government grands, and the large amounts of private funding out there - i'd say that government isn't crowding anything out here.

Intense competition for government grants means that there is more demand than supply of grants. That makes sense. People want grants because that is basically dream job financing. Pretty much every working adult would do that if they could. People don't want to pay for other people to do their dream jobs without a strong likelihood of some benefit or outcome, which explains the shortage of supply of grants.

You are really not giving evidence of a relationship or lack of a relationship between government and private research funding. If you said historically, when one went up the other went up, or there is no historical correlation, that would be the evidence the contradicts my assertion that government funding crowds out private funding.

People want grants because that is basically dream job financing. Pretty much every working adult would do that if they could.

Results ARE expected of grant recipients. Fairly heavy expectations, along with plenty of scrutiny from the higher-ups regarding where that money goes (in fact, most of the time the higher-ups have say over how the majority of the money is spent). A grant recipient has to live up to their promise to produce intelligible, concise results. Ideally their results will also stand up to scrutiny by other groups (people will be checking their homework). Oh, and at many institutions a grant cannot enrich a researcher; it would merely replace the check they would have been paid for doing lectures in the classroom. Just a different name on the check is all. That's not to mention that the nuts and bolts of doing science is hard, requiring advanced mathematics and insight along with some levels of expertise. Many people who initially go into a science PhD wind up working as a number cruncher in the private sector, away from actual research, because the pay is so much better and the environment less critical overall. Tons of physics grads jump ship to Wall Street, because their skills are in high demand and more richly reward (monetarily speaking). The people who tend to stay in research are those who have some kind of overriding interest in the subject, because there are much better ways to get rich using their education.

I just don't get how a "moderate" christian can get from "the bible is a metaphor and I still believe in science and evolution" to "I'm also a christian." If you don't believe the bible is True, what basis is there to believe the god of the bible is real?

I think you'd use your brain and don't take every word you read in scriptures from any religion litteraly?I believe that what's theology is about, not taking everything litteraly, but understand these books were written by men, with a certain mindset from a certain time, and understand there is symbolical and metaphorical meaning to all of this, and understand it's more about the values they're supposed to teach than the fact that some fantasy story is true. In this context it's up to you to determine if god is supposed to be real or also a concept, but maybe on a certain level there's no difference.

What distinguishes you from someone who just likes a particular book called "the Bible" then? I like Mark Twain, and I think there's a lot of moral insight that can be gained from reading his novels, but I'm not a Mark Twainist. I even enjoy reading the Bible, appreciating it as a literary work and an interesting historical creation. I'm not a Christian. What BTKO is asking is how someone goes from appreciating a book to being a believer. If all it means to be a Christian is that you think there are some nuggets of wisdom in the Bible, then Christianity can hardly be described as a religion.

I'm not a specialist (nor a christian), but it's not only the book, it's an organized religion, with core values, a ritual tradition, and human beings that keep it alive, (and make mistakes), so it's kept alive and evolving by these values and ritual. faith I think is something very personal, and if you chose to follow a particular cult, these values and ritual are only supposed to be a mean to access this faith, not an end. While it's proabably better to share some of those values, it doesn't mean you have to abandon all critical thinking and believe everything said in the name of said religion by men to be the unquestionned truth.(hope I make some sense).again this is probably biased, since I'm agnostic at best.the problem you have here that seem very specific to the US is hardcore evangelism,gor exemple the catholic church has never recused the evolution theory, and has pretty quickly officially accepted it. Frankly from my european perspective this is a bit frightening to read that creationism theory is considered on the same foot as evolution theory, is teached in some school, and that 45% of americans believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so."(from the wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism )(also cheer up it's 75% in saudi arabia)

The Catholic Church was adamantly opposed to evolution for about 100 years after its discovery. It's only in the 1990s that the Catholic Church officially accepted evolution. Even now, the Catholic Church only accepts evolution with caveats. For example, the Church denies that the human soul has evolved, which makes for some pretty strange questions of interpretation. Did the human soul exist in Neanderthals, or Australopithecenes, or did it only come into existence with anatomically modern humans? Who was the first human to have a soul? The human mind and emotions have clearly evolved, so is the soul something different?

People want grants because that is basically dream job financing. Pretty much every working adult would do that if they could.

Say this to the face of a researcher on a soft money contract who has to secure grants to cover salary (for themselves and the rest of their lab) and works 80+ hours a week. Watch them laugh until they cry and then spit rage.

In fact, if you can find me one researcher who is really stoked about the grant process, I'll eat my hat.

because of an artificial controversy advanced by people with political objections and willful ignorance, children are actually being robbed of the chance to learn about these things.

Politically active adults want to teach children A and rob children of the chance to learn B. Obviously, both creationists and evolutionists do precisely that. That's how all curriculum debates work. "I want to indoctrinate children with my ideas, thoughts, and perspectives, and suppress those of the other guy". The winner isn't the one with the best ideas, but the one with the most political clout. I'd like to see that political process moved more locally, where people have more say, more diversity, more direct engagement, and less of an ability to suppress the views of others.

They want a completely distorted and inaccurate version of science taught to all students, not just their own.

It's always the other guy with the distorted and inaccurate view, right? And it's only the other guy who wants to impose his view on others?

While I completely agree with you on pro-evolution, I suspect I may disagree with you on other things. I am horrified to learn the biased slant on history presented in most US K-12 schools that I've observed. Some historical events are taught, others are omitted or purposefully hidden. Some issues are presented as a choice, while other issues are presented as facts. I also think full agreement on these issues is unreasonable.

For schools, I prefer the neighborhood or city level of majority rule. So the majority within that area picks the curriculum, and the minority within that reason experiences some suppression, but cities shouldn't generally be able to force other cities to adopt a given curriculum or ideology.

This idea also assumes that every individual person has enough information, expertise, and intelligence to determine where best to allocate their funds.

Of course they don't. No one assumes that.

People don't have the info/expertise/intelligence to understand basic science and evolution, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have the basic freedom of choosing what to think. I believe in science and evolution strongly enough that it can and should convince people through logic and reason rather than political force. Similarly with research. Research should convince people to fund it based on its merit, like Kickstarter.com projects, rather than this mindset of "it is too important to give people a choice. the ends justify the means" and funding projects based on political clout rather than merit.

You can only be said to have freedom to choose what to think if you have unbiased access to information allowing you to make that decision. Allowing schools to give inaccurate information to kids for purposes of indoctrination in religion violates that basic premise.

Only experts can really know what research has merit and what does not. Kickstarter would only end up with "cool" projects being funded. Do you really want science to have to expend tons of money on advertising to convince people to give them money for reasons that have little to do with the merit of the project? And research is ABSOLUTELY not funded based on "political clout". It is funded based on the appraisal of experts in the field.

And honestly, you're worried about your vote not having an impact, but you think being able to directly allocate just 0.0001% of the country's tax dollars *would* have a meaningful impact?

Absolutely! With a winner take all democracy, even the viewpoint of the 49% can be completely suppressed, regardless of its merit. If even 1% of the population loves a certain food or TV show or exercise style, they have direct choice and direct engagement and direct results without having to win a massive remote election of disengaged voters before hand. Ideally, a 1% crowd could have similar direct choice and engagement with altruism, health care, education, and research.

Then you'd prefer a parliamentary system with proportional representation? How about instant runoff voting? I have no qualms there. But you seem incapable of understanding that the average person simply isn't in a position to be able to determine how best the entire country should spend the little bit of money given to it. You are far better off electing someone to act as your proxy, who has the time, energy, intelligence, and resources to make those decisions for you.